Commentary on popular culture and society, from a (mostly) psychological perspective

Friday, January 13, 2012

"...an estimated 50,000 persons are kept in jail or in prison on any given day in the U.S. for child support arrears."

I was working on some continuing education articles today on legal issues and came across the case of Turner vs. Rogers that I thought would be of interest to readers here. In this case (which examines child support) according to an article on mental health and medical rights by Steven R. Smith, JD:

...the question was whether there is a right to have appointed counsel in such civil contempt proceedings. Typically, such civil contempt findings must be based on the fact that there is a valid child-support order, and that the noncustodial parent was able to comply with it, but failed to do so.

In a 5-4 decision the Court held that the state is not necessarily obligated to provide counsel for indigent parents facing incarceration for civil contempt related to the failure to pay child support. At a minimum, however, states must have in place procedures to ensure "a fundamentally fair determination of the critical incarceration-related question, whether the supporting parent is able to comply with the support order."

There is much more to this case than the lack of counsel being provided that I will not get into here but I was disappointed to see that Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion:

Thomas further argued (with Justice Antonin Scalia, but not Chief Justice John G. Roberts or Samuel Alito joining) that the majority opinion did not consider the effects of this decision with respect to child support payments, and expressed concern that the majority opinion would undermine state efforts to collect child support payments.[4]

A person being in arrears on child support payments is not unusual: in 2008, 11.2 million U.S. child support cases had arrears due.[1] The number of persons kept in jail or in prison for child support arrears is not generally tracked. Based on a publicly available collection of relevant data, an estimated 50,000 persons are kept in jail or in person [sic]on any given day in the U.S. for child support arrears.[2] Hence Turner v. Rogers does not merely concern a technical question of legal procedure. Being in arrears on child support payments is a situation that many persons experience. Moreover, as a result of child support debt, many persons in the U.S. are being imprisoned.

If 50,000 on any given day is accurate, it is unbelievable how many men are being kept in jail for owing money. Many people feel that child support is a different kind of debt but I disagree. Debtors' prisons are long gone, so much so that people are actually nonchalant and even contemptuous about owing others money. They know that jail is not an option for them.

I believe that the jails are full of fathers because of their sex exclusively. We have a higher percentage of deadbeat moms, but few are held accountable and I doubt that many, if any, of the 50,000 in jail on any given day are female. Why does our society allow men to be thrown in jail this way? Are there that many chivalrous men and white knights like Thomas out there who believe that men's rights end when it comes to reproduction? Are there that many totalitarian women out there who believe that a man in jail is par for the course and a source of smug satisfaction?

Given how many of our nation's men sit in jail over child support, I guess the answer is a resounding "yes."

40 Comments:

the cost will be that men will not engage in this sort of deal as the full cost of doing business this way becomes obvious to more men.

the problem is that there are still too many momma's boys out there who are intimidated into such deals by aggressive women who give ultimatums to those who try to refuse to engage but have an emotional investment in the relationship.

Not only the debtor prison aspect, but also the fact that licenses can be removed, from a driver's license to whatever license you need to earn a living. Right, "You can't or won't pay, so we'll make sure you can't pay!"

When I was paying child support, I lived in terror that there would be a glitch in the system and they would come after me. Also, early in the proceedings, I went to the court house and paid in person. The women behind the counter were astonished. I doubt that it is because most men are deadbeat, but because of the misandrist (real word?) propaganda.

Are there that many totalitarian women out there who believe that a man in jail is par for the course and a source of smug satisfaction?

oh yes indeed, there are, by the many millions -- and child-support is just the iceberg's tip

i'd estimate that 60, mebbe 70 percent of the men in local/county jails are there by accusation (usually spurious or outright false) of a female who uses the courts/cops as her personal tool of coercion and petty vengeance for a wide range of "offenses"

it is v easy and it is v common

the latest fad in gynoland is charges of Verbal Harrassment when a male "sasses back" to a female (otherwise known as speaking the truth)

There are many many women out there that believe it is their God-given right to have as many children as they wish by whatever man they wish. Sadly, way too many men feel that birth control is not their concern.

The result is what we see today. Men who don't want to be part of a family with the mother of their children, and women that know all to well the state will assist them in turning the biological father of their children into a 18-year cash cow.

My suggestion to every man in the US is to invest in a large box of condoms, or be much more choosy with whom you have sex. No matter how lovable and sweet you think the gal you met on the corner or the club is, if opportunity abounds she'll come after your wallet the minute the going gets tough. Going to court and explaining to the judge that you think she's a skank makes things much worse.

It amazes me at the number people, male or female, that think they are a victim because they had a baby with somebody who is a user.

Women's groups have demanded more and more for over a century. In one of my comments to another post here, I had found a group demanding guaranteed child custody for the woman as far back as 1850.

Some where along the line a hatred of men began smoldering in our society and erupted into a full blown wildfire in the 1960s. Now, few things are worse than a man.

Looking at my three sisters, I see a hyper-sensitivity to any perceived offense. The way a child, who has no idea what "gay" really means, may say, "He looks gay." Men sitting down at a time the woman doesn't approve of. A car salesman, probably not wanting to be accused of taking advantage of a naive woman, suggesting a woman talk it over with her husband before purchasing a car. There are all incidents in which I've seen my sisters become quite offended.

But, discriminate against men for college entrance, for job selection and benefits, shoot a sleeping man in the back - no problem. While women may say they love their husbands, brothers and sons (and some truly do), for many there is an underlying hatred that allows them to approve of treating men like this. Usually a hatred that has no foundation in life experience, but was taught to them by other women or is the woman projecting her own emotional problems on the world.

Our current male debtors' prison system is completely discriminatory I agree. It should be abolished, I agree.

So what do we do to collect child support from actual dead beat parents. I am not talking about people who were swindled, tricked, conned, or bamboozled. I am talking about actual deabeat parents. How do we get them to pay for their own children? How do we get us to keep from paying to feed, clothe, and incarcerate these kids?

I don't understand that logic of throwing the guy in jail. How is he supposed to pay if he's in jail? Especially because he'll probably be fired, so even after he gets out he will have trouble making the payments.

Tmink: I have a solution that isn't a direct answer to your query but would probably stem the tide of deadbeat parents.

Judges need to stop with the bias toward mothers. When it comes to custody the state hands the kids over to the parent with the best job, best support system and most stable home life. Judges won't be able to take into account who the mom is or who the dad is, or who is pounding the fist on the table for custody or who has the best lawyer. Judges should also hand out joint custody solutions if both parents are fit.

If women were unable to so easily turn their biological fathers of their children into money machines we'd see the whole system of child-support discord and prison sentences collapse. Why have the kid if there is a chance a mother won't get custody and have to make weekly payments for 18 years?

Of course, the abortion clinics would be chock full and the IUD manufacturers would have to crank up production but that would be the price we'd pay.

How many guys have given up? When we hear about the man who had to pay child support despite being conclusively proven that he is not the father, or (sensitive readers stop here) the woman who performed oral sex, did not swallow, then used it to impregnate herself — "they're gonna get me anyway" despair could be ruling the day.

I don't understand that logic of throwing the guy in jail. How is he supposed to pay if he's in jail? Especially because he'll probably be fired, so even after he gets out he will have trouble making the payments.

Like I have said here 10 times at least....... every single solitary man alive in the U.S. - married or not - needs to take a full week off from work and spend it sitting in the last row of a divorce court in any town, anywhere. You simply will not believe the goings on, and how the deck is stacked against the male with the full cooperation of all involved, including to a lesser degree, the man's own lawyer.

Don't listen to anyone about anything. No one's story, no articles written by anyone, anywhere. Just go see and hear for yourself.

And of you know anyone planning on marrige, do what I do. Offer them a case of beer and a one way bus ticket to the town that is the farthest distance possible from the town in which they live. This will give them a few days to think it over alone. And if they STILL want to do it, they will have to pay their own way back.

One day one of our contractors came into the office. His hair was dishelved, his eyes were red and blurred. He looked like hell. He hadn't had more than four hours of sleep a night since his daughter was born.

I told him, well, you wanted to fuck.

That's the bottom line. Every time a man enters into a sexual relationship a child could be the result.

Of course the legal system and the courts discriminate against men. The marriage contract is a license for abandonment, betrayal and bankruptcy.

Get used to it, because it's not going to change. You wanted to fuck, now deal with the consequences.

But remember that presumptive paternity, no fault divorce and abortion on demand render the marriage contract null and void from the very beginning.

You want to fuck? Go ahead. Just know that sperm is money. Be careful where you deposit it.

There are many many women out there that believe it is their God-given right to have as many children as they wish by whatever man they wish.

Thats because they are largely shielded from the financial hardships by the state picking the pocket of the man most able to pay up, or they go to the treasury to get the cash.

As far as B.C. goes, my thoughts at this point are if it is a womans absolute choice, then it should be their absolute responsibility. They should NOT have an avenue for 22 years of monthly cash payments simply because they couldn't be bothered to deal with their own fertility, or they wish to have access to somebodys wallet and not have to work.

Sgt Ted: I don't mind there are women out there that are having babies to get child support cash because I can't control how other people think. However, I am appalled that the state and federal governments are so complicit with this immoral and unethical mindset. I don't really have control over the gubmit either but I can feel a tiny bit better when I write my scathing emails to my elected officials telling them it will be a cold day in hell they'll be getting my vote.

Wow. Even if the process to decide which "deadbeat parents" should be thrown in prison were totally unbiased based on sex (which of course it isn't), the overwhelming majority of those imprisoned would still be men simply because of the biases in who gets custody and support: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/latest-u-s-custody-and-child-support-data/

To me the two are inseparable, as the government enables the behavior, thus legitimizing it and making it acceptable and even desireable for some women.

I know men who had to threaten to quit their jobs to get their ex-wives to back off of constantly going back toto court to milk more and more money from them, when the women were already getting enough cash to not have to work.

I had my child support deducted from my pay by the Air Force, and sent directly to the court so that I would have proof of payment. Yet every year, in the summer, for several years the court did not pay my ex, and claimed I had not paid them. I think it was because everyone was on vacation, and my not paying was a convenient excuse. I knew I could be jailed if I could not prove I had paid.

Like I have said here 10 times at least....... every single solitary man alive in the U.S. - married or not - needs to take a full week off from work and spend it sitting in the last row of a divorce court in any town, anywhere. You simply will not believe the goings on, and how the deck is stacked against the male with the full cooperation of all involved, including to a lesser degree, the man's own lawyer.

not just Divorce Court, but any US court of any type

the american courts, like law enforcement and the government in general, are little more than rubber stamps for the greed, selfishness, and especially vengeance of women

the behavior of male lawyers in open court -- particularly before female judges -- can only be described as beyond pandering, and far into the realm of grovelling

it's a JustSis Sistem, and it is absolutely and gleefully predatory when it comes to the humiliation, impoverishment, and degradation of boys and men

Can we distinguish perhaps between men "trapped" once (having sex with someone who forced them to become a parent) and the scores of men, often minority, innercity, and ghetto -- intent to breed their seed throughout the world to up their population numbers? Especially with white women?

Not sure if you see too much of that population in your work, Dr. Hels, but I think locking them up -- where they don't get conjugal visits -- is the least society can do to keep these "moochers" DNA off the government roles. Since we can't sterilize...

I know your guys here who conceived out of wedlock and try to keep up some semblance of support don't like to be lumped in with the 20+ kids men. But there you have it. Society's got a real problem -- now that we've got all these generous social programs for women -- of men who want to ... up their numbers, and have somebody else step up and provide for their offspring.

Again, your "it only happened once!" men might be victims, but this other group? Society is the victim of them, and their ill bred ways.

It's like that mandate that presumes all non insureds are running up bills, and running away from them. Nope. Take away the real problem -- the "guaranteed" ER treatment, and writing off the medical bills for the people who can't pay.

Ditto -- take away the women's WIC and food stamp/childbirth support after one (or more, in the case of multiple siblings from one birth. ie twins/triplets) After that, the unsupported woman is on her own, and if she can't provide support, she can turn over the children to the state to raise.

The government social programs are set up to pit the moochers against the suckers. So, in your trying to defend the victimized men who are not moochers really themselves, you're kinda taking away the one tool -- lock 'em up with no freedoms, especially sexually! -- that society can use against men who simply will not work, and will not stop breeding poor children.

Only minority, inner city and ghetto men (whatever that means) stick their penis into women willy nilly, Mary? Apparently you've never been in the sack with a man. Men of all races everywhere refuse to wear condoms and have sex without asking about birth control, it's not a "ghetto" problem as you call it.

Those minority, inner city and ghetto men of which you speak spend more of an effort to parent their kids than Caucasian and Latino dads once the parents separate, says 2 studies by Pew Research.

Please tell me more about 20+kids men, because I'm here in the depths of Baltimore City, I talk to a lot of men and I have never ever met one with 20 or more kids, not even close.

I have never heard the "up the numbers" excuse for having children either. What is that about?

I'd like what would happen to this country if hospitals refused treatment for those who can't pay. Our mortality rate would be the same as Somalia, there would be bodies in the street.

Remember that 'child support' is just a misnomer for a second stream of alimony.

1) Custody is always given to the mother on a 'no fault' basis.2) The amount is calculated as a percentage of income, with no relation to the cost of the child.3) The woman has no accountability on whether she spent the money on the child or not.

The 'what's best for the children' scam is how feminists have reintroduced slavery of men to America.

Anyone who is actually concerned with the well-being of children would make laws such that divorce is hard to get. Easy divorce already means that a society no longer cares for children.

In reality, the official ideology of the US is 'what's best for the children, after the mother's needs are met as the first priority'.

Cham said...Only minority, inner city and ghetto men (whatever that means) stick their penis into women willy nilly, Mary? Apparently you've never been in the sack with a man. Men of all races everywhere refuse to wear condoms and have sex without asking about birth control, it's not a "ghetto" problem as you call it. "

Have you spent much time in areas where black men -- ghetto or non-self-supporting black men -- think it's healthy to impregnate white women?

I'm not talking -- love me some sex, no condom handy, cmon baby get with me -- I'm talking deliberately set out to breed themselves over and over and over again. Not just have sex with 'em, but breed 'em. With their own (substandard) seed. Not just any black man will do this -- it takes a special mindset.

If you haven't encountered this phenomena, or don't think I'm talking truth about some subsets, talk to the Health and Human Services departments in your areas (if you have ghetto black men) about those who end up taking care of these (usually low self esteem) white/black women, and their needy broods.

You can't blame the children, of course, but you can't pretend it's just a teenager "oops -- I came!" accident. Not when there's multiple women, and sometimes, multiple children just months apart... and all on the public dole from birth.

"Please tell me more about 20+kids men, because I'm here in the depths of Baltimore City, I talk to a lot of men and I have never ever met one with 20 or more kids, not even close."

Trust me. You wouldn't feel safe visiting these homes. And there are multiple "homes" for these children. And happiness everytime another bitch breeds a new one. Ups the overall numbers, and Uncle Sam is a generous "baby daddy" provider ... all the way until the jail cells shut on their care, once they reach adulthood...

The first step in breaking the cycle is refusing to deny where these babies come from, and stop pretending these parents are just too stupid to understand how birth control works. They want 'em, they got em ... and you and me are paying for 'em.

"I have never heard the "up the numbers" excuse for having children either. What is that about?"

I think it has something to do with the hidden excitement of America not being a minority-minority place anymore, with advanced breeding upping the numbers of non-whites. Many of whom were conceived and born on America's generous welfare dime.

"I'd like what would happen to this country if hospitals refused treatment for those who can't pay. Our mortality rate would be the same as Somalia, there would be bodies in the street."

In the end, people would choose to breed better. Nobody wants to see their children starving and dying. Cut the incentives to breed, and you'll see much less of it being done if the participants have to pay their own way, so to speak.

It is given (according to figures from 2007)slightly less than 5 times as often to moms as it is to fathers. So you are correct. Do you think that it is just happenstance that women are about 5 times more likely to get custody than men? Bad luck? Wrong horroscope? How do you explain that discrepency?

Okay, here's the deal, Mary. Having been raised "in the 'hood" if you will, I do know that there are men who have multiple children from multiple women who are indeed on the dole. This happens. Very few have 20+, LOL.

In fact, I actually know a couple of men from the neighborhood I grew up in who are among these men. BUT...

These are not the plurality of children whose fathers are jailed for non-payment. It is just not true. And most of these men are not deliberately running to and from lying with women to deliberately "run up" the number of children they breed, LOL.

Are they careless? Yes. Are they a drain on society? Yes. Should a good number of them be locked up? Yes, because they're usually criminals to boot, LOL. But again, you are allowing your biases and your concern about the substandard seed of black men is off base. Why do you assume these substandard men are even bright enough to plan out a strategy to out-breed other groups, LOL?

These are most often young men and women with poor impulse control because they have been raised themselves and been sexually active since middle school. Most are high school dropouts who barely hold a job.

But these do not make up the majority of men who are thrown in jail for child support violation. You may not know this, so let me help you out. A good number of these young women are "in love" with these men and give fictitious names to the welfare officials when they go to apply for assistance because they want to spare the man the hassle and legal troubles of being hunted down for support.

They claim they don't know who the father is (in some cases it may be true). They give the run around: They don't know where he is, they don't know where he lives, they don't know where he works. They say this even though they know he'll be showing up later to spend the night.

My point is that the majority of men imprisoned for child support are men who were 1)married to the mother or 2)at least have tried to support their kids. That's how they got in the system in the first place. They had a job, they admitted paternity or submitted to a paternity test, and had a case adjudicated with a support order awarded.

Oh, and what have you to say about these innocent helpless women who were victimized by these callous, breeding obsessed men?

Trey, I'll explain that discrepancy. Men are much more likely not to ask for custody. They feel culturally the kids would be better off with the mother, or they don't want the responsibility of full-time raising the kids. Because of the hesitancy to ask for custody, judges have been convinced that the children are better off with mom. So the cycle perpetuates itself. If more dads asked for custody the courts would change their tune.

"They feel culturally the kids would be better off with the mother, or they don't want the responsibility of full-time raising the kids."

Perhaps.

Or perhaps they feel helpless in a rigged system where their chances are slim to none. I was able to keep my daughter in this state and living with me half time. It made me part of case law for Father's rights and it cost about $80,000. Had my parents not been wealthy (I was fresh out of grad school) my precious daughter would have been lost to me.

But I had to fight through the despair of facing a bigoted system. I thank God for His help and sustaining love. I was depressed and on meds during the process, the only time I have required anti-depressants or psychiatric meds.

So there is at least one other motivation that informs men seeking custody of their children.

And in the last couple of sentences you blame men for being discriminated against. That kind of circular logic is good for oppressing people, but not so good for understanding how people are oppressed.

Read those last sentences you wrote over and see if you get what I am saying.

There is nothing discriminatory about the last two sentences. Few dads seek custody so the judges assume that children are better off with moms. More dads seek custody, more case law, more visible dads in the courts, far more dad squeaky wheels, the courts look at the situation differently.

Same can be said when juries were made up of white male property owners. This demographic had a biased point of view so decisions turned out a certain way much of the time. When juries diversified then decisions became different. The judges need to see more men in the courtroom to change their bias.

I thought what I said was very straight forward. You are the one assuming I'm being discriminatory.